JUDGMENT D.N. Patel, A.C.J. – I.A .No.387 of 2017 This interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 82 days in preferring the instant appeal. 2. Having heard learned counsel and looking to the reasons stated in paragraphs 25 to 13 of the interlocutory application, there are reasonable reasons for condoning the delay in preferring the instant appeal. 3. Accordingly, I.A. No. 387 of 2017 is allowed and delay in filing the instant appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No.17 of 2017 4. Looking to the contentious issues involved in this Letters Patent Appeal, same is ADMITTED. 5. Counsel for the respondent waives notice for admission. 6. Registry is directed to enlist this Letters Patent Appeal under the Board ''For Hearing'' in the 3rd weeks of August, 2017. I.A. No.1400 of 2017 7. This Interlocutory Application has been preferred for getting stay against the operation, implementation and execution of the the judgment and order delivered by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.6334 of 2015 dated 22nd September, 2016. 8. Having heard learned counsels for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the respondent is the original petitioner who was appointed as a Dairy Development Officer in the year 1965. Thereafter, on ad-hoc basis, he was posted as Deputy Director in the year 1998. Thereafter, again, as an interim arrangement, the respondent was given the charge of post of Regional Joint Director in the year 2002. The respondent (original petitioner) reached at the age of superannuation on 30th June, 2003. It further appears from the facts of the case that the pension was already fixed and other retirement dues were paid on the basis of pay scale of the Dairy Development Officer. 9. Thereafter, in the year 2010, i.e. after lapse of approximately 07 years, claim was made by the respondent that the retirement dues ought to have been calculated on the basis of the pay scale of Regional Joint Director, which was denied by the Government of Jharkhand and, hence, a writ petition was preferred in the year 2015 bearing W.P.(S) No.6334 of 2015, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge by a judgment dated 22nd September, 2016. 10. 10. It appears that prima facie, there is a case in favour of this appellant, because, the respondent was never promoted to the post of Deputy Director, or the respondent was further promoted to the post of Regional Joint Director. There can be any reason; there can be any administrative exigency, for which the respondent might have been given the charge of superior posts, but, that does not mean that the respondent is entitled to salary and retirement benefits of the superior posts. As the Letters Patent Appeal is pending, we are not much analyzing these facts. Suffice it will be for us to say that these facts constitute a prima facie case of these appellants. Balance of convenience is also in favour of these appellants and if the stay, as prayed for, is not granted, it will cause irreparable loss to the appellants. Once the amount is paid, even if the Letters Patent Appeal is allowed, it cannot be recovered from the respondent. 11. Hence, we, hereby, stay the operation, implementation and execution of the order passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.6334 of 2015, judgment and order dated 22nd September, 2016, during pendency and final hearing of this Letters Patent Appeal. 12. I.A. No.1400 of 2017 is allowed and disposed of .